Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:38 AM
    it is one of the largest money laundering operations in the history of mankind, and the Democrat big buck donors will get the lion's share just like they did under the Obama green energy money laundering operation when 80% of green energy money taxed away from the wages of hard working American Citizens WENT TO Obama's corporate donors! It's amazing how hard working wage earners continue to vote for the very con artists who financially rape their paychecks and have destroyed every inner city they have controlled for generations as Kimberly Klacik so eloquently demonstrated: .
    49 replies | 813 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    03-06-2021, 06:50 PM
    The U.S. currently has about a 200 trillion dollar unfunded debt liability. Add in the national debt which is about 22 Trillion, and one can easily see a national financial calamity on the horizon, just like that in Venezuela. JWK
    49 replies | 813 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    03-06-2021, 06:03 AM
    That's exactly what Justice Gorsuch's opinion is. The Equality Act attempts to exercise legislative authority proposed under the “Equal Rights Amendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree, the Equality Act, is a usurpation of power not granted. The proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is as follows: "ARTICLE — "Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
    8 replies | 263 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    03-04-2021, 02:53 PM
    :rolleyes: The "commerce clause" was intended to accomplish a very narrow objective . . . aside from regulating foreign commerce, its object was to prohibit one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws: “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.” The “commerce clause” has absolutely nothing to do with granting a power to our federal government to meddle in the business practices of private businesses within a state’s borders.
    8 replies | 263 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    03-04-2021, 01:14 PM
    In the Bostock v. Clayton County case Justice Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, June, 2020, lied to the American People with regard the meaning of “sex” as found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case involved three business owners who made business decisions to let go an employee based on their sexual deviant behavior and conduct. Gorsuch found they violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by simply asserting the word “sex”, found in the Act, not only applies to the male and female gender, but also applies to sexual behavior and conduct. Of course, Gorsuch's assertion that the word "sex", as found in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, is intended to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct defies the very clear and unmistakable intentions for adding the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In fact, a review of the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congressional debates, as well as contemporary news accounts when the Act was being debated for passage, confirms Senator Howard who added the word "sex" to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, was to ensure that "women" would have a remedy to fight employment discrimination, the same as minorities had a remedy to fight racial discrimination. Adding the word "sex" had nothing to do with protection for sexual deviant behavior or conduct in the workplace. But even so, the bottom line is, nowhere in the Constitution is Congress authorized to prohibit distinctions being made in the workplace based upon sex, and thus, adding “sex” to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in and of itself, was an assumption of power not granted to Congress. In fact, a number of attempts have been made over the years to grant legislative power to Congress to prohibit distinctions in the workplaces being made based upon sex. in the 1920s an “Equal Rights” amendment was proposed to be added to the United States Constitution which would have, if adopted, granted the legislative power to Congress, i.e.,
    8 replies | 263 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-26-2021, 03:41 PM
    So then we are probably in agreement to the following extent, that our constitutions, state and federal, are not being adhered to by those entrusted to support and defend them. JWK "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 11:10 AM
    What is "clear" is, you simply love to make up crap . . . With regard to my understanding of "standing" see my following post HERE JWK
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-25-2021, 09:17 AM
    But the Constitution, which all States have agreed to, does declare electors are to be appointed in the manner as the State's Legislature may direct . . . not the Court, the people, or Little Bow Peep. "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." ___ my emphasis. JWK When our federal judicial systemignores the rule of law and our written Constitutions, Federal and State, andassents to acts contrary to the rule of law, it not only opens the door toanarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 10:58 AM
    Thank you for your personal opinion, but THIS POST supplies the documentation your personal opinion is wrong. JWK When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to acts contrary to our Federal and state Constitutions, as it has done in this case, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in and encourages such treachery.
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 09:21 AM
    When a number of states disenfranchise the voters of Texas in a federal election by illegal voting practices in those states, you bet the State of Texas has standing and a judiciable controversy with those states, and, the United States Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such controversies (Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, USC) See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) "Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. “he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)."
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-22-2021, 10:54 AM
    Of course, Justice Roberts appears to have been threatened in the past, i.e., the Obamacare case. JWK Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-21-2021, 09:11 AM
    . In response to the State of Texas filing a Motion for leave to File a BILL OF COMPLAINT in which twenty other States joined, our Supreme Court issued the following ORDER dated, FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020. As you can see, the Order offers no legal reasoning to substantiate Texas does not have standing, nor does the ORDER explain why the Court alleges Texas ". . . has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections." On the other hand, the Texas Motion for leave does assert election activities within the Defendant States, which were embraced and condoned by State Government Officials, were in violation of “. . . one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”) (Rehnquist, C.J., concurring). Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law. Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.” Additionally, the Texas Bill of Complaint does in fact raise a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the Defendant States conducted their elections as follows:
    47 replies | 2150 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-12-2021, 10:19 AM
    You might be right but I am now inclined to suspect a sort of narcissistic, high-conflict personality, in the mix. JWK “Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-12-2021, 09:57 AM
    You lied when you said you didn't take my words out of context. JWK The unavoidable truth is, our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have a plan for “free” college tuition, and cancelling student loan debt. The problem is, it will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-12-2021, 09:13 AM
    Now you are lying. Your wrote: Your statement is inaccurate, because you say "the only punishment," What I actually wrote was:
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-12-2021, 08:10 AM
    So now you are going to take my words out of context. What I actually wrote was: For those unaware, the only punishment provided for a successful impeachment trial is as follows:
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-11-2021, 05:58 PM
    My statement is accurate. I wrote: For those unaware, the only punishment provided for a successful impeachment trial is as follows: “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” JWK
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-11-2021, 03:39 PM
    It is now crystal clear in my mind that the 56 Senators who voted to move forward with an impeachment trial for Trump, were never serious about punishing him for “high crimes and misdemeanors” as alleged in the House’s ARTICLES OF IMPEACHEMENT. For those unaware, the only punishment provided for a successful impeachment trial is as follows: “Judgement in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” The fact remains, any real punishment for an office holder who may have committed the act of inciting an insurrection, is to be prosecuted by our judicial system and then punished as prescribed under Title 18. This is where the real punishment is to be administered! 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    02-10-2021, 06:14 PM
    In regard to the legitimacy of today’s Senate impeachment trial and Senator Leahy acting as judge, jury and prosecutor, let us never forget that Madison describes such circumstances as follows: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny ".. . . Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47 Perhaps that is why our wise founding fathers commanded in our Constitution “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside” ___and not a communist/socialist inspired Senator who derides an America First Policy and now presides over an individual who advocates and America First Policy. So, all those Democrats and Republican Senators, who voted in favor of this trial, have not only violated their oath of office, but are now willing accomplices in an act of tyranny. JWK
    24 replies | 476 view(s)
No More Results

1 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Hi I'm Chowder

    I saw your debate with Wild English nut-job Rose with the Fair Tax. Man you tore him apart!

    Anyway I want to say thanks for the info you posted on the Hannity Forums. I used to be a neo-con but I saw the light around December of last year.

    I also used to support the fair tax and really thought for a while it seemed like a good idea. But your statements have changed my mind.

    Thanks man.

    -Chowder.

    P.S Where is your sources for the info, I would like to read them more closely or did you rely mostly on the Constitution: the one document our Politicians ignore except for Ron Paul.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
About johnwk

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
2,458
Posts Per Day
0.53
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 01:09 PM
Join Date
07-19-2008
Referrals
1

1 Friend

  1. Weston White Weston White is offline

    Member

    Weston White
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

08-12-2020


08-27-2019


04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-14-2018


01-26-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast

03-06-2021


03-04-2021


02-26-2021


02-25-2021


02-24-2021


02-22-2021


02-12-2021


02-11-2021


02-10-2021



Page 1 of 41 12311 ... LastLast